CFD of x0.

7 scaled-down Northrop Gruman X47-B

with Dual TFE-731 Engine Capacity

Name:
Haseeb ur Rehman

Advisor:
Air Cmdr. Tauqeer Ul Islam

Co Advisor:
Sqn Ldr Adnan
Table of Contents
1. Methodology.................................................................................................................................2
1.1. Model Acquirement..........................................................................................................2

FIGURE 1: LIFT CURVE SLOPE FOR ZERO CONTROL SURFACES DEFLECTION.......................................................................5

TABLE 1: MAJOR GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF THE UCAV.........................................................................3

1. Methodology
This section consists of steps taken to complete the project. It includes all the setup,
modelling and processing steps as well as trial and error steps taken during the
results evaluation.
Following were the major steps:

1.1. Model Acquirement

The model was acquired from already available archive as X47-B is an
established UCAV. Then, it was not what we required it to be because our project
encompasses much lighter and smaller scale UAV, and with a different purpose too.
Modelling
The model, initially, contained surface bodies as they use terms in the CAD
modelling lingo, but to have a valid CFD analysis of the model, it was necessary to
have a solid body model instead of a surface body model which needed quite a bit
refining at the start. Solid body is required because a surface body cannot be
subtracted from another solid body which will be required when enclosing the model
in the pressure far-field. For this, every face was split and isolated and then it was
checked whether there were any overlapping faces or not. It was done in CATIA V5
software. Then check was made for any spaces or gaps between adjacent faces so
that there should not be any when final product is reached. Lastly, all the faces were
joined back to each other and along with that, it was being checked whether any two
faces fail to join as that will again make the solid back to surface with a gap in
between the faces.
When solid body was achieved, then scale-down step was done and the
whole UCAV was scaled-down to factor of 0.7. It means that every dimension of the
model was reduced to 70 % of its original length. For CFD purpose, inlet and
exhaust of the engine was close for simplification as it requires another mass flow in
and out condition during the setup and processing of the CFD. Also, during the
meshing phase, mesh penetrates the inlet where there is no requirement to calculate
any parameter and hence results in unnecessary calculations.
Following are the major geometric parameters of the scaled down UCAV:
Table 1: Major geometric parameters of the UCAV
Fuselage Length 8.3 m
Wingspan 13.2 m
Planform Area 44 m2
Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) 3.9 m
Weight 34445 N
Centre of Gravity 0.4 MAC

For control surfaces separation, different platforms were used to separate and
rotate them. To separate the elevators and elevons, CATIA V5 was used. First the
faces of the control surfaces were separated and isolated then, they closed from the
faces they were separated from and also faces on the UCAV were closed too. When
control surface became separate body, then they were moved a little bit away from
the main fuselage and wing body so as to give them freedom to rotate.
For further rotation and translation of control surfaces and further
modifications, ANSYS workbench Space Claim was used. Space Claim also helped
in cleaning and further refining the model.
Since the UCAV that is being worked on is a flying wing configuration, i.e., it is
tail-less, hence there is no rudder or at least no simple or conventional rudder is
present on the UCAV. For yaw control, there are control surfaces present on both
wings up and down which provide yaw to the UCAV through drag differential. These
are called Split Differential Rudders (SDRs). They too are ought to be modelled. For
that, in CATIA V5, surface was separated from the body and given an angle and
rotated about front hinge. Then the hollow part formed due to face separation was
filled by making missing face there. Similarly, downward SDR was also modelled
same way just rotating downward.
Meshing
 Meshing part was done in the Fluent Mesh section where default meshing
was done on inlet and outlets while face meshing was done on walls of the UAV.
Size of the meshing elements was varying depending upon level of detailed
parameters required in that region. For instance, more change is observed on the
leading edges of wings hence sizing was put there of 0.01 m. Similarly, more
changes are to be observed on the control surfaces so 0.02 face sizing was put on
the elevator and elevons as well as Spit Differential Rudders.
Now, Y plus is the dimensionless length and is defined as minimum length
from the surface of the body first parametric value is measured whether it be
velocity, temperature or pressure etc. To reduce this value, Inflation was added in
the meshing in which far-field sphere was selected as first scoping geometry while
aircraft surfaces were selected as boundary scoping geometry. Type of inflation
selected was ‘first layer thickness’ and first layer thickness value were given 0.05
while no. of layers and growth rate were subject to change for every case.
During the meshing part, enclosure faces were named so as to constrain
them in the Setup section. One face in front of the UAV was named ‘Inlet’ while rest
five faces were named ‘outlet’ as enclosure was very closely bound to the UAV and
flow could be assumed to have released from any of the sides except inlet. The
surface of the solid UCAV model was named “walls”.
Another setup of enclosure led to naming only two named selections. The
outer hollow Sphere was named as far-field while rest of the faces were named
aircraft walls or simply aircraft.
Fluent Setup
Here, the environment is established around the mesh generated in the last
step.
For better results the air was set to ideal gas which carried extra calculations
of energy equation along with the viscous Spalart Allmaras equation. All the
reference values were calculated from the inlet and from that view the reference area
was given to be 44 m2 which is the planform area of the model. Also reference
length was given 4 m which is mean aerodynamic chord of the UAV model. These
values are already mentioned in Table no.
For each angle of attack case, the direction of the relative air flow was changed from
setup instead of changing the pitch of UCAV itself as it would have required to re-
mesh the whole model which would be counterproductive albeit a bit accurate. Mach
No. was given 0.45 which is the cruise Mach no. of the UAV from design. This was
converted into components in x and z axes with cosine component of Mach No. in x
direction and sine component in z direction. Simulation was done on several angle of
attacks from zero degrees with interval of 2 degrees or in various cases, 3 degrees,
up until 18 degrees where stall was observed for simple geometry. The stall angle
kept changing slightly as the control surfaces came into play.
Method was set to COUPLED with all of the subsequent calculations set to SECOND
ORDER UPWIND and controls were revised slightly according to the setup
requirements. Simple initialization was done using the tab computing from INLET.

Results
Elementary plots with zero control surface deflections came out to be as following:

CL vs Alpha
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
CL

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Alpha

Figure 1: Lift curve slope for zero control surfaces deflection

 CD vs Alpha
0.300
0.275
0.250
0.225
0.200
0.175
0.150
CD

0.125
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025
0.000
-0.025-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Alpha

0.08
Cm vs Alpha
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
Cm

-0.08
-0.10
-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
-0.18
-0.20
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Alpha
 L/D vs Alpha
12

10

6
L/D

-2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Alpha

0.90
0.85
Drag polar
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
CL

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22

CD
 Results are quite conformant with the trend as CL does increase linearly until
stall point where it starts to drop drastically. CL max came out to be 0.7 at almost 15
degrees angle of attack. Such low CL is because of the symmetrical nature of wing
used in the UCAV model but it does satisfy the trend. Similarly, Cm is according to
the general trend too as Cm-alpha comes out to be negative and Cm is linearly
decreasing with increasing alpha. Then at stall, it becomes almost constant.
Following Table shows performance values derived from the CFD model:
Table 2: Performance values obtained from the CFD results
CLmax 0.75
CL - α
Cm - α
Cl (roll) - β
Cn - β
L/Dmax 13

The model is generating lift sufficient to sustain maximum weight of the UCAV
even at small angle of attacks but certainly is not sufficient for maximum
performance output. This is because the max L/D ratio is somewhere between 3-
and 4-degrees angle of attack while cruise trim angle is slightly changed at zero
elevator and elevons deflection.
Given below are all of the performance parameters found through CFD with
various control surface deflections:
With elevator deflections we get the following performance plots:
 CL vs Alpha (with Elevators def) CD vs Alpha (with Elevators defs)

CL (0 elevator) CL (-20 elevator) CL (+20 elevator)

Cm vs Drag
AlphaCDpolar
(with (with Elevators
Elevators
(0 elevator) defs) defs)
CD (-20 elevator) CD (+20 elevator)

0.300 CL (0 elevator)
0.9 Cm (0 elevator) Cm CL(-20(-20elevator)
elevator) CmCL(+20(+20elevator)
elevator)
0.275
0.8 0.90
0.250
0.7 0.08
0.80
0.225
0.6
0.06
0.200
0.70
0.04
0.5 0.175
0.02
0.60
0.150

CD
CL

0.4 0.00
0.125
0.50
0.3 -0.02
0.100
0.2 0.40
-0.04
0.075

CDCL
0.1
-0.06
0.050
0.30
-0.08
0.025
0.0 0.20
-0.10
0.000
-0.1 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 -0.12
-0.025
-0.14
0.00
Alpha -0.16 Alpha
-0.10
-0.18
-0.20
0.000 2 0.04 4 0.08
6 8 0.12 10 0.16
12 14 0.20 16 0.24
18

Alpha
CD

L/D vs Alpha (with Elevators defs)

L/D (0 elevator) L/D (-20 elevator) L/D (+20 elevator)
14
12
10
8
6
4
L/D

2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Alpha
These results also show that the performance parameters are following the general
trend and elevator deflection changes stall angle as well as trim angle of the UCAV.
Maximum L/D ratio is achieved at zero elevator deflection.
 When outboard elevons are also deflected along with the inboard elevators,
results are somewhat different from above plots. Following graphs show the
difference:

CL vs Alpha (with Elevons defs) CD vs Alpha (with Elevons defs)

CL (+20 elevon) CL (+10 elevon) CL (0 elevon) CL (-10 elevon) CD (+20 elevon) CD (+10 elevon) CD (0 elevon) CD (-10 elevon)
CL (-20 elevon) CD (-20 elevon)
0.9 0.300
0.8 0.275
0.7 0.250
0.225
0.6
0.200
0.5
0.175
0.4
0.150
0.3
0.125

CD
CL

0.2 0.100
0.1 0.075
0.0 0.050
-0.1 0.025
-0.2 0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-0.3 -0.025
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Alpha Alpha
Cm vs alpha (with elevons defs) Drag Polar (with Elevons defs)
Cm (+20 elevon) Cm (+10 elevon) Cm (0 elevon) Cm (-10 elevon)
+20 elevons +10 elevons 0 elevons -10 elevons -20 elevons
Cm (-20 elevon)
0.08 0.7
0.06 0.6
0.04
0.5
0.02
0.00 0.4
-0.02
0.3
-0.04
-0.06 0.2
CL
Cm

-0.08 0.1
-0.10
-0.12 0.0
-0.14 -0.1
-0.16
-0.2
-0.18
-0.20 -0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28
Alpha CD
 L/D vs Alpha (with Elevons defs)
L/D (+20 elevon) L/D (+10 elevon) L/D (0 elevon) L/D (-10 elevon) L/D (-20 elevon)
14
12
10
8
6
4
L/D

2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Alpha
Same trend is observed with increase in the range of CL and Cm.
Now, similarly, by deflecting left and right elevons differentially, we get rolling
moment about center of gravity. Following are the plots which show performance of
the UCAV when ailerons are deflected:

CL vs Alpha (with Ailerons defs) CD vs Alpha (with Ailerons defs)

CL (0 ailerons) CL (10 diff ailerons) CD (0 ailerons) CD (10 diff ailerons)
0.90 0.300
0.85
0.80 0.275
0.75 0.250
0.70
0.65 0.225
0.60
0.55 0.200
0.50 0.175
0.45
0.40 0.150
0.35
CL

CD

0.30 0.125
0.25 0.100
0.20
0.15 0.075
0.10
0.05 0.050
0.00 0.025
-0.05
-0.10 0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Alpha Alpha
 Cm vs Alpha (with Ailerons def) Drag Polar (with Ailerons defs)
Cm (0 ailerons) Cm (10 diff ailerons) 0 ailerons 10 diff ailerons
0.02 0.90
0.01 0.85
0.00 0.80
-0.01 0.75
0.70
-0.02 0.65
-0.03 0.60
-0.04 0.55
-0.05 0.50
-0.06 0.45
-0.07 0.40

CL
-0.08 0.35
Cm

-0.09 0.30
0.25
-0.10 0.20
-0.11 0.15
-0.12 0.10
-0.13 0.05
-0.14 0.00
-0.15 -0.05
-0.16 -0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24
Alpha CD
Cl_roll
Cn vsvsAlpha
Alpha(with
(withAilerons
Aileronsdefs)
defs)
ClCn(0 (0ailerons)
ailerons) Cl (10
Cn (10diffdiffailerons)
ailerons)
0.20
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
Cn
Cl (roll)

-0.04
-0.04
-0.08
-0.08
-0.12
-0.12
-0.16
-0.16
-0.20
-0.20
00 22 44 66 88 10 12 14 16 18 20

Alpha
Alpha
It can be observed that change in alpha does not change rolling and yawing
moments significantly with or without ailerons deflections. Also, differential ailerons
deflection decreases maximum lift coefficient to a slight amount while delays the stall
angle by a degree angle of attack or so. Trim angle is also reduced significantly by
ailerons as pitching moment is reduced for every angle of attack.
 Now the last control surfaces to access for performance are Split Differential
Rudders, a pair of which is located on either side of each wing and they work as drag
incremental surfaces to produce yaw and provide directional control.
Following results were obtained by deflecting left Split differential rudder pair 20
degrees:

CLCl_roll
vs Betavs (with
Beta (with left SDR
left SDRs def) def) CD vs Beta (with left SDR def)
Cl_roll CL(0 (0SDRSDRleft)left) Cl_rollCL (20 SDR left) CD (0 SDR left) CD (20 SDR left)
0.700.020 0.24
0.65 0.22
0.016
0.60
0.20
0.550.012
0.50 0.18
0.450.008 0.16
0.400.004
0.35 0.14
0.300.000 0.12
Cl_roll CL

CD
0.25 0.10
-0.004
0.20
0.15 0.08
-0.008
0.10 0.06
-0.012
0.05 0.04
0.00
-0.016 0.02
-0.05
-0.10
-0.020 0.00
-10-10 -5 -5 00 55 1010 15 2020 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
BetaBeta Beta
Cn vs(with
Cm vs Beta Betaleft(withSDRleftdef)SDR def)
Cm Cn(0 SDR
(0 SDRleft)left) CmCL(20(20SDRSDRleft)
left)
0.020
0.020
0.016
0.016

0.012
0.012

0.008
0.008

0.004
0.004

0.000
0.000
CmCn

-0.004
-0.004
-0.008
-0.008
-0.012
-0.012
-0.016
-0.016
-0.020
-0.020
-10-10 -5-5 00 55 1010 1515 2020
BetaBeta
Conclusion